MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Progressivism’

The LA Fires: Progressive Governance Claims More Victims

Posted by M. C. on January 25, 2025

Not surprisingly, California’s politicians and others are blaming “climate change” for what has happened and one expects to see future lawsuits against energy companies, claiming that they have caused warming that is responsible for the current spate of wildfires in California and elsewhere. However, the real culprits are California officials themselves and the legal and regulatory straightjackets they have created that prevent people from taking the necessary actions to abate fire risks.

“The fire community, the progressives, are almost in a state of panic,” Ingalsbee said. There’s only one solution, the one we know yet still avoid. “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

https://mises.org/mises-wire/la-fires-progressive-governance-claims-more-victims

Mises WireWilliam L. Anderson

Much has been written about the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, including articles on this page and other libertarian sites. After several days of uncontrolled fire and destruction, we are very familiar with the governmental failures that have led to this current crisis. Progressivism is the guiding star of both California’s state government and local governments in the highly populated regions on the state’s Pacific Coast, and progressive policies have all but guaranteed this latest disaster.

Governing ideologies matter and matter greatly. The former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would not have been as repressive as they were without guiding ideologies of their political leadership. Modern progressivism, while not as virulent and violent as the German and Soviet regimes, operates with a similar utopian worldview to repressive ideological regimes, and people living under progressive governments pay a serious price.

California’s governance has been ultra-progressive for more than a decade and cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have become the poster children for failed progressive regimes. Democrats hold a 3-1 edge over Republicans in both state houses, while the California congressional delegations in the US House and Senate are dominated by the Democratic Party, which has won almost all the statewide elections for office in the past 30 years. Democrats hold a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature, which means Republicans cannot mount a challenge to any policies favored by Democrats.

Not surprisingly, California’s legislation is highly progressive, from the setting of high minimum wages to environmental policies, all of which impose huge costs on Californians that people in most other states don’t directly experience. Likewise, Los Angeles and San Francisco also have progressive governments that place leftist ideology over the nuts and bolts of ordinary governance.

Like most progressives, California’s lawmakers and activists believe that they can accomplish whatever they wish through legislation and coercion. When people in California believed that insurance rates were “too high,” they pushed through Proposition 103, which, according to Connor O’Keeffe, “severely decoupled” insurance rates from risk, which encouraged more building in fire-prone areas. On top of that, California’s insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has announced a one-year moratorium on insurance cancellations, which means insurance companies cannot cancel a homeowner’s policy even if they are in a fire-prone area.

By forcing the few insurance companies that still write policies in California to offer below-cost premiums in places where wildfires are likely to happen, the state is all-but-forcing these companies into bankruptcy, as the claims in the latest fires certainly will out-strip whatever revenues they received from premiums. Given that the estimated damages are likely to be the highest ever from a wildfire, perhaps more than $20 billion, this will affect insurance companies across the nation.

Not surprisingly, California’s politicians and others are blaming “climate change” for what has happened and one expects to see future lawsuits against energy companies, claiming that they have caused warming that is responsible for the current spate of wildfires in California and elsewhere. However, the real culprits are California officials themselves and the legal and regulatory straightjackets they have created that prevent people from taking the necessary actions to abate fire risks.

Elizabeth Weil, writing in ProPublica, points out that more than a century of fire suppression in California forests has created conditions that when fires start, they turn into conflagrations:

The pattern is a form of insanity: We keep doing overzealous fire suppression across California landscapes where the fire poses little risk to people and structures. As a result, wildland fuels keep building up. At the same time, the climate grows hotter and drier. Then, boom: the inevitable. The wind blows down a power line, or lightning strikes dry grass, and an inferno ensues. This week we’ve seen both the second- and third-largest fires in California history. “The fire community, the progressives, are almost in a state of panic,” Ingalsbee said. There’s only one solution, the one we know yet still avoid. “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

However, both the National Environmental Policy Act and California air quality laws, among others, make it extremely difficult to do anything to mitigate the damage done from fire suppression.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Few Lawrence Reed quotes

Posted by M. C. on August 27, 2024

Our expensive welfare state is fueled by the destructive notion that ‘greed’ is when you want to keep your own money but ‘compassion’ is when you want to take somebody else’s.

Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly “reforming” their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they’re always busy “reforming” is an implicit admission that they didn’t get it right the first 50 times.

A statesman doesn’t try to pull himself up by dragging someboy else down, and he doesn’t try to convience people they’re victims just so he can posture as their savior.

“Progressivism” means never understanding economics, never taking responsibility for the disasters you create, never shedding the hate and envy you feel for those who create wealth, and never having to say you’re sorry for ruining the lives of others, many of whom never asked for your “help” in the first place.

By mandating an even higher minimum, the living wage prices even more people out of work. The people who push these cockamamie ideas never seem to ask why any employer would hire someone at $8.23 if that person’s services are only valued in the marketplace at, say, $5.00.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Progressivism Creates Hitlers and Genocides || Thomas Sowell Reacts

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2024

Thomas Sowell Reacts

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Case for Libertarian Internationalism

Posted by M. C. on April 19, 2024

Since when does not supporting an aggressive, belligerent, interventionist, and meddling foreign policy mean that you are an isolationist?

Libertarians believe in internationalism just like conservatives claim they do. But their idea of internationalism is quite different.

Libertarianism internationalism favors peace and friendship with all nations. No sanctions and embargoes should be imposed against any country.

by Laurence M. Vance

Libertarians and conservatives share a common enemy. Whether it is described as liberalism, progressivism, collectivism, or socialism; whether its adherents term themselves liberals, progressives, Democrats, or democratic socialists — the agenda is the same: paternalism, universal health care, free college tuition, more gun-control laws, social justice, green energy, environmentalism, climate-change alarmism, affirmative action, government-mandated family leave, government-funded child care, more antidiscrimination laws, privileges for organized labor, an ever-increasing minimum wage, increased taxes on “the rich,” easier access to welfare with fewer work requirements, and abortion on demand (at taxpayer expense for low-income women). The result of all of these things is a larger and more intrusive government and increased government regulation of the economy and intervention in society.Conservative internationalism is just a smokescreen for an interventionist foreign policy with all the trimmings.
[Click to Tweet]

Conservatism 

Although libertarians and conservatives may share a common enemy, this does not mean that the two groups are ideological cousins — no matter what President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) thought. In a 1975 Reason magazine interview, Reagan said: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” The reality, of course, is that conservatism desires less government interference, less centralized authority, and more individual freedom in just certain areas, only on select issues, and concerning just some subjects. Conservatives are big on reforming government programs or replacing them with other government programs instead of repealing them lock, stock, and barrel. Just because there is some overlap in the desires of conservatives and libertarians and in the progressive policies that they oppose doesn’t mean that conservatism and libertarianism are two sides of the same coin.

The other problem with conservatives is that they often say the same things as libertarians but with a somewhat or entirely different meaning. Consider the conservative mantra of fidelity to the Constitution, federalism, limited government, private property, less government, lower taxes, less regulations, individual freedom, fiscal conservatism, traditional values, the free market, free enterprise, and a strong national defense.

Libertarians certainly believe that the federal government should actually follow its own Constitution and the federal system of government put in place by the Founders. Limiting the government, lowering taxes, and reducing regulations are music to the ears of libertarians. Individual freedom and private property are the twin pillars of libertarianism. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism that is in opposition to fiscal conservatism or traditional values. Free enterprise and the free market is the cry of every libertarian. And libertarians undoubtedly believe in the legitimacy of defense against aggression.

But regardless of how many times they recite their mantra, conservatives don’t follow the Constitution in many areas. They believe in federalism except when they don’t. The only limited government they seek is a government limited to control by conservatives. They don’t accept the freedom of individuals to do anything that’s peaceful. They don’t believe in the inviolability of private property. They think traditional values should be legislated by government. Fiscal conservatives they are not. They don’t yearn for free enterprise and a free market in everything. And conservatives confound national defense with national offense.

The conservative mantra is simply a ruse to persuade grass-roots conservatives to continue to vote Republican in order to keep those evil Democrats out of office.

Conservative internationalism

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Woke Egalitarianism and the Elites | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 3, 2023

It happened in the socialist twentieth century, which promoted the biggest mass murders in human history in countries such as China, Soviet Union, and Cuba. And it will happen again under the woke progressive socialism of the twenty-first century: the leaders want to be new kings, and they use the masses as infantry to be sacrificed on the battlefields.

https://mises.org/wire/woke-egalitarianism-and-elites

Artur Marion Ceolin

In the research paper Egalitarianism and the Elites, published in 1995 in the Review of Austrian Economics, one of Murray Rothbard’s most brilliant insights was that even the implementation of an egalitarian society requires leadership. As the fall of one system to the implementation of a new model of society cannot come out of nowhere, someone must command and lead this process. And naturally, these leaders will occupy powerful positions.

Indeed, Rothbard’s affirmation demonstrates how human existence is unequal and how some are naturally more qualified to lead the social processes. In a free-market society, the leaders are the entrepreneurs. With their ability to forecast future needs, they generate new solutions and create new productive arrangements. As a consequence, they create profit for themselves and value for their customers.

On the other hand, in a state-centered society, naturally someone will stand out and command the conquest and maintenance of power. In this sense, there are a lot of possible arrangements, as there are a wide variety of situations in which leaders can be involved. Recently, Western civilization is living a moment in which social constructivism has reappeared, now under the name of “progressivism.” However, even with a new name, progressivism is nothing more than an attempt to refound society.

For those more concerned with the failures of constructivism, Ludwig von Mises in his book Theory and History has already explained why constructivism is arbitrary, in contrast to the complex social process in which individuals are involved. Thus, constructivist movements (as Black Lives Matter, for example) are nothing more than the instruments of people who want to achieve power and determine the path of our society.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Progressivism, brought to you by Pfizer

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2022

We’ve learned that senior editor Kiera Butler is preparing a hit piece on Dr. Vinay Prasad, himself a political liberal, for questioning the safety of the “boosters”; Prasad has correctly noted that the so-called safety data consists of results on eight mice.

https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/progpfiz?e=fa1aba8cd8

It’s hard to believe now, but not even one human lifetime ago the slogan “question authority” was associated with the left-liberal project.

That’s long gone, having been replaced by “shut up and obey.”

This more recent, more authoritarian approach is much more in line with historic progressivism, which began in the Progressive Era as an elitist movement that favored the management of society by a self-identified expert class, albeit concealed beneath a veneer of “democracy.”

So it should not surprise us that Mother Jones, a progressive publication, isn’t really so skeptical of authority or of big corporations after all. It’s now more or less an unpaid division of Pfizer.

We’ve learned that senior editor Kiera Butler is preparing a hit piece on Dr. Vinay Prasad, himself a political liberal, for questioning the safety of the “boosters”; Prasad has correctly noted that the so-called safety data consists of results on eight mice.

Butler sought comment from Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, whom I mention quite a bit in this newsletter. Jay has since reproduced her email, along with his answers.

So here’s Kiera Butler:

I’m writing about the bivalent vaccines, and I saw that you had retweeted Dr. Prasad’s video questioning their safety. I’m wondering if your past activism around opposing Covid protections — with the Brownstone Institute, Hillsdale College, and the Great Barrington Declaration — influenced your opinion on this at all? And I’m wondering if you think it’s fair to characterize your takes on Covid as contrarian?

Jay’s response:

(1) The FDA did not require any human clinical study before approving the bivalent ba4/5 booster, so I don’t have any opinion at all about their safety profile. I simply don’t know.

(2) The GBD was signed and supported by tens of thousands of scientists and doctors around the world. It is not a contrarian position, but represents the standard way of dealing with respiratory virus pandemics that the world has followed for a century until 2020.

(3) I am not paid by any of the organizations you mentioned and received $0 from them. My thoughts reflect my professional training in medicine, epidemiology, and health policy.

Let’s see how much of that winds up in Kiera’s Pfizer press release.

Sorry, article

For people who really do question authority, I recommend being part of the incredible and smart community I’ve built around the Tom Woods Show. I am extremely proud of it, and would love to have you join us:

http://www.SupportingListeners.com
Tom Woods

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Attempt to Prosecute Donald Trump Is Unleashing More Than Our Political System Can Handle

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2022

Because I spent many years researching and writing about federal criminal law, I can say that if federal authorities wish to charge someone with a crime, nothing, not even the law itself, stands in their way. So, if the Biden administration really wants to charge Trump with something, the FBI will have no trouble cooking up something to order.

https://mises.org/wire/attempt-prosecute-donald-trump-unleashing-more-our-political-system-can-handle

William L. Anderson

With the recent FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Florida home, the Democrats and the Biden administration have raised the political stakes to a level from which this country as we have known it may never return. All one can say to those that are demanding a criminal prosecution of the former president is: Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

Although the raid ostensibly was to see if Trump took classified documents from the White House when he left in a chaotic move in January 2021, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy believes the Biden administration was again attempting to find that proverbial “smoking gun” tying Trump to the January 6 Capitol riot. Whether or not Attorney General Merrick Garland is able to grab the brass ring and prosecute Trump after yet one more fishing expedition is another story, although I doubt that any president has seen as many resources used to investigate him as has Donald Trump, but the Department of Justice has not filed charges yet.

Understand that anyone reading this article has committed a federal crime at some point, perhaps more than once. I adopted four children from overseas, and while I was not involved in the details (done through legitimate and registered adoption agencies), I can be held criminally responsible if anyone paid bribes in the countries where the adoptions took place. Even if investigators could not prove someone paid bribes, they could still charge me with a crime on a mere pretext. And the charges would stick, and most likely a federal jury would vote to convict.

Remember that Democrats wanted Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti investigated. While the demands were overtly political, it was clear that the Democrats believed in using criminal law to achieve political purposes in her case, but using the law that way hardly is limited to operatives of the Democratic Party.

(Lest one believe I exaggerate, read this account about lobster importers charged with federal crimes for allegedly violating Honduran lobster regulations—with the attorney general of Honduras telling the FBI there was no violation. A federal jury convicted the men, and they were sent to federal prison for eight years.)

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the “New World Order” Is Impossible to Implement without Creating Mass Chaos

Posted by M. C. on August 11, 2022

The only satisfactory answer is thoroughly chilling: it appears that having acquired all the money one can spend and all the power one can wield, the global elite remains capable of deriving perverse psychological satisfaction from engaging in large-scale acts of wanton destruction. In other words, its representatives do not seem to mind committing a spectacular suicide so long as it is a side effect of a vastly more spectacular democide.

https://mises.org/wire/why-new-world-order-impossible-implement-without-creating-mass-chaos

Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski

The events of the last few years have resurrected a recurring worry among people mindful of their liberty, property, and personal dignity. This worry centers around the prospects of the emergence of the notorious “new world order,” a worldwide totalitarian plot hatched by globalist “elites” intent on destroying the surviving remains of free speech, free enterprise, and free thought.

Before asking how justified such worries are, let us note that the “new world order” narrative typically contains a “negative” and a “positive” element. The “negative” element describes how the global conspirators intend to bring about a worldwide socioeconomic collapse—i.e., eliminate the “old world order”—whereas the “positive” counterpart focuses on the nature of the global totalitarianism will be built on the ashes of destruction. In this connection, it is essential to note that new world order theorists almost always depict the totalitarianism under consideration as some form of technocratic feudalism with communist undertones, most closely reminiscent of present-day China coupled with Western-style “political correctness” and Malthusian eugenics.

When it comes to the “negative” part of the narrative in question, one can plausibly argue that far from consisting of conspiratorial speculation, it is blatantly unfolding before our eyes. Long-term coordinated global inflationism, persistent “stimulus spending,” the energy sector’s “environmentalist” strangulation, the destructive madness of lockdowns, and the relentless promotion of “woke” insanity clearly seem to be forming a perfect storm of worldwide planned chaos.

Obviously, none of these phenomena are spontaneous, and it does not take a genius to grasp the utterly ruinous consequences of their implementation. Thus, the ongoing devastation of the “old world order”—today most often referred to as the “Great Reset” or “building back better”—smacks of coordinated malevolence, giving rise to well-justified concerns.

The “positive” part of the new world order project, on the other hand, appears to be more of a bogeyman. This is because the kind of global totalitarianism that theorists typically envision is a praxeological impossibility.

First, comprehensive depopulation, far from centralizing nearly all productive resources in the hands of the parasitic “elite,” would vastly undercut its power by eliminating the bulk of the global economy’s productive potential. After all, as noted by Julian Simon, it is human beings, with their inventiveness and entrepreneurialism, that constitute the paramount driving force of economic development. Hence, by carrying out their Malthusian plans, elite globalists would saw off the branch on which they are sitting and eliminate themselves together with their victims.

Second, if the subjugated global population were to be literally enslaved rather than culled in a vast eugenic scheme, then the new world order would collapse in no time as well. This is because a stable, well-functioning international totalitarianism would have to rely on exceedingly complex technological solutions and massive amounts of high-quality capital goods.

However, armies of literal slaves cannot create or maintain such goods, nor devise and implement such solutions. After all, slaves are notoriously unproductive individuals, since they have no means and no incentive to invest in their talents, skills, contacts, and complementary resources. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that the masters would perform these tasks, since they would constitute a very small upper crust.

Third, if one were to suggest that the new world order could successfully operate based on highly advanced artificial intelligence solutions, then, once again, the natural question is who would devise and oversee the relevant infrastructure. The elite puppet masters, regardless of their cunning, would be too few to accomplish this task. Masses of slaves, as pointed out earlier, would be singularly ill-equipped to manage this feat.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Rothbard vs. the Religion of Progressivism

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2022

Despite these superficial deviations, progressives are Marxist to the core because they fervently believe in the Enlightenment myth of inevitable progress toward an ideal society. Therefore, as Rothbard points out, progressivism is “‘religion’ in the deepest sense, held on faith: the view that the inevitable goal of history is a perfect world, an egalitarian socialist world, a Kingdom of God on Earth.”

https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-vs-religion-progressivism

Joseph T. Salerno

Our main text for the Rothbard Graduate Seminar this week is Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market: Government and the Economy, which contains a systematic treatment of one area of economic theory, interventionism. This represents a departure from past seminars in an important respect. Earlier seminars focused on texts by Mises or Rothbard that addressed a much broader scope of their thought. Previous seminar texts such as Man, Economy, and State and Human Action cover the entirety of economic theory. Human Action, in addition, features a full treatment of methodology as well as discussions of epistemology, political philosophy, and economic history. Other texts used at earlier Rothbard Graduate Seminars such as The Ethics of Liberty and Economic Controversies are also broad in scope, containing, respectively, Rothbard’s systematic presentation of his political philosophy and a broad spectrum of his essays on theoretical and applied economics.

This week’s RGS deliberately focuses on the much narrower topic of interventionism, because it is the economic program of progressivism, the prevailing ideology of the twenty-first century. Progressivism attained this position after a leftist “long march” through Western educational, cultural, religious, economic, and political institutions, which began shortly after World War II, gained momentum during the 1960s, and rapidly accelerated in the 1980s. In a prescient memo written shortly after the war, Ludwig von Mises pointed out that the essence of the progressive policy agenda is interventionism. Mises called the teachings of progressives, “a garbled mixture of divers particles of heterogeneous doctrines incompatible with one another.” He included Marxism, British Fabianism, and the Prussian historical school in this doctrinal witch’s brew. Whatever the differences among them, however, all progressives were passionately united on two points. First, they believed that “contradictions and evils are . . . inherent in capitalism.” And second, they argued that the only way to root out the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism and transform it into a more humane and rational system was by imposing the program of interventionism laid out by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. As Mises pointed out, “the Communist Manifesto is for [progressives] both manual and holy writ, the only reliable source of information about mankind’s future as well as the ultimate code of political conduct.”

To be clear, the gradualist, interventionist path to socialism laid out in The Communist Manifesto was explicitly rejected in the later writings of Marx as “petty-bourgeois nonsense.” The later Marx advocated permitting the conditions of revolution to ripen until the continuing immiseration of the workers, worsening economic crises, and concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands caused the proletariat to rise up and destroy the capitalist system in one mighty blow. Although embracing Marx’s ultimate goal, progressives thus differ from full-blooded Marxists in choosing the nonviolent, gradualist route toward socialism via interventionism, the mixed economy, democratic socialism, or whatever you wish to call it. Some progressives view interventionism as a method of subverting capitalism and achieving full socialist central planning. Others—probably the majority today—see interventionism as the means for taming and humanizing capitalism and seek to foist it on the productive class of workers and entrepreneurs as “a permanent system of society’s economic organization.” But the difference between these two variants is beside the point. Regardless of the precise long-run goal of their proponents, interventionist policies have the same effects. They distort market prices, misallocate resources, stifle and misdirect entrepreneurship, destabilize the economy, and redistribute income from the producers to the parasitic ruling elites and their constituencies and cronies.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Video Available! What is Progressivism?

Posted by M. C. on May 21, 2021

“Non-Producers In Control”

Go to the link for great 4 minute primer on progressivism.

https://mises.org/economics-beginners

mises_what-is-progressivism_20210506.mp4

Often, however, when we discuss economics, we do so within the context of politics—such as during an election period, or how a tax increase may impact the local economy.

Some call themselves “progressives”—implying that their political and economic views are “modern” or “forward looking.” Throughout American history, “progressives” have claimed to promote an economic system that is a “third way” between capitalism and socialism. They advocate an economy “regulated by experts,” rather than by politicians or free markets.

There is, however, nothing “progressive” about this.

This system of government has the same problem as “cronyism,” the mistaken belief that government can do better than the market system.

Markets work by coordinating the supply and demand of resources and products all around the world. Because of prices, entrepreneurs, businessmen, and consumers are able to calculate the best way to achieve their desired ends.

Progressives do not trust individuals to make these decisions on their own. Instead, they want markets and prices regulated by so-called experts, whose influence comes from universities or politics, not from producers creating goods or services that people want and can use.

A basic mistake the progressives make is the belief that enough specialized education can empower individuals with better knowledge than the market can give. In this way they justify increasing political and legislative power to grab more control over our society. This is dangerous.

Economically, whether or not this government intervention is the product of simple political corruption, or sold as “regulation by experts” is irrelevant. The result is the same—the market system is manipulated by the coercive power of government for political ends, not for the benefit of actual consumers. This doesn’t provide a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, it undermines capitalism in order to justify more state power. As with cronyism, the people who benefit from this third way are not the entrepreneurs and producers who make useful contributions, but the political “experts,” the non-producers, who end up in control.

Third-way government intervention benefits big corporations through tax breaks, product legislation, enforcement of industry standardization, lobbying, etc., making it much harder for small firms to compete. Thus, big national and multinational firms win both in the marketplace and in the legislative halls because of the unfair advantages bestowed on them by the government.

The progressives’ “expert class” creates new problems through the rise of a managerial class of bureaucrat that can impose great influence over the economy, without being held accountable by either the market or the ballot box. In America today, after a century of the progressive government agenda, we now have a revolving door between regulatory agencies and powerful companies—no matter what the results of an election are.

Without any accountability, the result has been major policy disasters that have brought financial crises, exploding costs in healthcare and student loans, or economic lockdowns in the name of “public health.” 

These are not the products of a free market, but the direct consequence of years of failed interventionist policies. 

There is no “third way” in economics, either consumers are allowed to direct their economy—or the government is in charge.

Economics is not a science that empowers certain experts to better manage society. Instead, it teaches us the limits of what government can do to bring about prosperity in the world.

Progressivism is not the answer. The more we learn to “think like an economist,” the more we understand the value of a truly free society.

Questions:

  • Do you believe economics explains why most promises made in politics never happen?
  • Do you think the government would operate better if more politicians understood economics?
  • Which style of government do you think is more likely to grow, a government that is motivated by greed—like cronyism—or a government motivated by social justice—like progressivism?  

Additional readings:

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »